iamshack

QUOTE(Contreras @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) Yeah, that's relevent...OR NOT. How the hell does it matter? He has no control over it. That's like saying Javy is the best pitcher on our staff because the offense scores the most runs when he pitches. Well, I disagree with you. He certainly has control over it to some degree. I won't deny that it depends on the people behind you driving you in. But explain this to me....If Youkilis has Loretta, Ortiz, and Ramirez batting behind him, why is he scoring less than 40% of the time while Pods is scoring 50% of the time? The Greek God of Walks has reached base 154 times, compared to Scottie's 130 times. Yet Youkilis's slow ass has still scored 4 less runs than Scottie. Abreu, who has been on base 173 times, has scored 5 less runs than Scottie, only 35% of the time.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) But his overall ERA is 5.05 (or something close to that) for the entire year. It's not just a bad month, it's a bad year. I understand that. What I am pointing out is that Freddy has looked bad for reasonably long periods of time before and bounced back. In May, which no one seems to remember anymore, Freddy walked ONE hitter in 41.1 innings and had an ERA of 3.70 with a WHIP of 1.11. Now if I recall correctly, that was when he was throwing his assortment of slop just as he has been in July. Take a look at this: 2005 Batting Average Against April .210 May .284 June .190 July .335 August .260 September .248 2006 Batting Average Against April .259 May .280 June .279 July .342 Notice anything familiar?? His k rate is down, his walk rate is about the same. If he gets the velocity back, it could mean getting back to where he was last year.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 03:53 PM) I hope some other team finds it encouraging enough to give us something of value for him. Before we all write him off as Rodrigo Lopez or something, it may be interesting to note that Freddy had a 5.05 ERA last July. It isn't the awful 7.50 ERA he is sporting this July, but then again, he has 2 more starts to make this month. I am not happy with the guy either. But some of this is just piling on. If he was truly throwing 94 again on Sunday, that is a great sign. Remember how quickly things can change, folks.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) I do and so should you! He is not the player he was last year. Even if he get soooo many more walks, he is stuck on first. Last year he would steal 2 bases and then before you knew it we were leading 1 to 0. I dont see him hitting the ball the other way this year as often. Mack is not VERY good in any OF position. Once again, Podsednik is doing a fantastic job of scoring when he does get on base. He has scored 65 of the 130 times he has reached base safely, or 50% of the time. The only other leadoff man who is at 50% or better is Jose Reyes. Even the great Kevin Youkilis, of the vaunted Boston Red Sox is not close to that. He has scored only 39.6 % of the time he gets on base.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) Well when you talk about his offence you have to include his SB's He is clearly not as good as last year and I don't remember him taking so many called third strikes. I could deal with him last year when his D was so so, but he is downright bad in the field this year. When you are putting Mack as replacement late in games,you are bad! Mack has been coming out of a lot more games recently than coming into late. The increase in called third strikes is due to him looking at more pitches and trying to draw more walks (on pace for 71 as opposed to 47 last year). He has not had a stellar year on the basepaths by any estimation, but he started out horrendously (I believe he was 8-13) and has been better since. I know no one seems to believe me, and anecdotal evidence seems to hold no water here, but I honestly believe he has been better since Ozzie's tonguelashing in the media.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) How about the ones he gets to that they fall out of his glove. Remember any of those? Not in the past 20 games or so, no. QUOTE(Felix @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) It's fashionable to bash on Pods. No s***. It's called Group Theory and peer pressure. A few people say it, and sooner or later it's snowballed and everyone is making it much worse than it actually is.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) What is that like 9 games? It's a start. If he was hitting for s*** the last 9 games people would sure as hell bring it up. He's at .280 with a .358 OBP. It isn't outstanding, but it's fairly solid.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) He's hitting well, despite what people here like to think, especially as of late (.365/.411/.462 in July). I cannot recall him not getting to any balls he should have lately either.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) If he was even middle of the road, he would be playing CF. I sat last year right behind him and I never saw worse jumps on the ball. He is fast and that makes up for some of it. Now C Lee was great his last year in LF. Huh?

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) Yes, it is. Let's just forget it. Some people believe he's bad and some don't. So when I present evidence to the contrary, it is dismissed. But when you disagree, we should simply drop it because you say so. I understand that you are implying that this horse is well past tortured, but when there is new evidence to be considered which suggests his defense may be improving, I think that is fair game for discussion. QUOTE(Contreras @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) You want a trade? Day one: Garcia to SD for Linebrink and a middling pitching prospect. Day two: Podsednik, middling pitching prospect, Haeger, and Fields to TB for Crawford and Navarro. Day three: DFA Widger or throw him in the deal from day two if TB wants him. As much as I love the idea of getting Crawford, I think that the price is steeper than that. Perhaps something like this: Garcia to NY for Heilman, Humber. Heilman, Humber, Fields, and Phillips to TB for Crawford and Edwin Jackson. CC takes over in LF when Anderson plays against lefties, and CC takes over in CF while Pods plays against righties. Edwinmania gets thrown into our bullpen, with the hope that Coop can harness that stuff of his.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) Then someone pointed out its flaws, no? Scott Podsednik must be one of the worst LFers in baseball. Aren't you the one who said he trusts his eyes over stats? It's clear to anyone who isn't blind that Pods is just plain bad on defense. All defensive metrics are questioned currently. Read the methodology and explain to me what the flaws are, Milkman. I think even SABRSox would admit defensive metrics are in their infancy, but it isn't right to dismiss them simply because they don't tell you what you previously believed. No, I never, EVER said that I trust my eyes over statistics. No, it isn't always clear that Pods is "plain bad" on defense. Peer pressure can be such an amazing thing sometimes.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) He's actually mentioned in the rumor, unlike Mackowiak or Fields. I don't know why they'd want to get rid of him. And what exactly is Pods doing well in LF? His defense is terrible. There is actually a metric I posted this morning which shows that he is pretty average.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) Such a cheery poster you are.. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a grump.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) just for kicks, if we did get cameron... dont you think that he would be the full time CF'er and that BA would become the 4th? I just don't see the point in replacing Brian at this point. It makes little sense to suffer through all his growing pains and then replace him just as he begins to produce for us.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 12:07 PM) Exactly. Not new news there. Looks like he tried something new, it didn't work so well, but it's stuck. He isn't trying anything new. He's doing the same crap he was in the first half of 04'- leaving everything up over the plate. He simply needs to hit the corners and keep the ball down and he'll be fine. Mark is the least of my worries.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) we all know the five horsemen need to get their s*** together. As a guy who is around the team all the time, what Hawk and DJ need to tell us is: A)Why has Freddy become a soft tosser and curveball addict? B) Why does Vaz lose concentraion? C) What's Buehrle doing to fix his ability to pinpoint the ball? D) Is Garland capable of getting into the kind of groove he found last spring -- and October? E) Can the Count dominate over the last two months again? Insight. We don't get any from our TV guys. Shame. I think it is a little more difficult than that. I think these are a lot of questions that Don Cooper doesn't even necessarily have answers to, because if he did, I think our guys would be pitching a lot better. You can't expect Hawk and DJ to have these answers.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) Konerko's numbers make sense. We all know that PK's best asset defensively isn't his range -- it's his ability to pick bad throws from Iguchi/Uribe/Crede out of the dirt. I don't believe this metric accounts for that, so you have to take the 1B numbers with a pretty large grain of salt. Look at how much better Uribe is defensively than any other ss in the league...

Did you read the "methodology" section?

QUOTE(CWSOX45 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) LeCroy was designated for assignment by the Nationals. Anyone willing to get this guy to back up AJ? That way we can get rid of Widger's worthless ass. NOOOOOOO. LeCroy can no longer play catcher. He allowed 7 stolen bases in a game earlier this season and had to be pulled mid-inning. And then Frank Robinson cried about it afterwards.

Hey all, I stumbled across this at Baseball ThinkFactory and thought I would post it. It is one defensive metric used which might shed light on how individual players in our startling lineup are playing defensively. I was especially surprised by Konerko and Crede's numbers, and not surprised by Uribe and Anderson. Also, take a peak at Scottie's numbers... BBTF: Dialed In

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) With that said, I agree 100% that there are more pressing needs, and KW understands them. That is why Wells will stay in Toronto, or why the Jays will be able to restock the whole farm if they traded him.. There were more pressing needs last year than AJ Burnett too, but that didn't stop Kenny from nearly acquiring him. Our GM will look to any way possible to upgrade this team, and you KNOW he loves name players. He'll look into it. It may not happen, especially with us letting half the league back into the WC race, but he'll consider it.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 08:36 AM) I really don't think we need to improve the highest scoring offense in baseball. We have other needs. No, the offense certainly is not the main concern as of now. But anytime you can acquire a young superstar player, especially one as solid all-around as Vernon Wells, you have to at least consider it. Wells' inconsistency at the plate over his career bothers me a little, but I think in our stacked lineup he would be pretty dangerous. This is probably more of a pipe dream than anything, but hey, Kenny has gone and done stranger things...

I just think that if you have a chance to acquire a guy like Crawford, and it doesn't hurt your ml team too much, you do it, regardless. He is the long-term replacement to Pods and could be had with pieces we might never need anyways.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:35 PM) Actually I do believe this. It's pretty much the same reason why it's so hard to find a reliable closer, for whatever reason as it gets later in the game it just gets harder and harder to get hitters out and when the game is on the line you need a certain type of pitcher in there who can handle that sort of pressure, it's the reason why so many pitchers fail in setup roles and end up getting moved to middle relief. But that's pretty much just how I see it plus this is sort of an incomplete thought, there's a lot more to it that I really can't articulate right now. I understand what you are saying. There are obvious pyschological reasons. The problem with that theory is that it pretty much one in which we created it ourselves. Prior to this creation, it was thought that you use your best reliever when he is needed most, not just in the 9th. Supposedly the White Sox are attempting to sort of have their relievers "unlearn" some of the more traditional roles and learn to be ready to come in and shut the other team when they are simply needed most, not according to some timeframe which says they are needed most. Take a looksie: From BP Punctuating the Closer's Equilibrium Probably the presentation with the longest and most interesting title was given by Jeff Angus, titled "Punctuated Equilibrium in the Bullpen: The 2005 World Champion Chicago White Sox Blend Sabermetrics & Sociology to Deliver a Successful Innovation." Some readers may be familiar with the work of Angus from his popular Management by Baseball blog and the publication of his new book of the same title which he signed for convention attendees. He also has done some writing for BP. In his presentation, Angus took a two-track approach, and first presented a history of the evolution of the bullpen since the late 1970s, and then discussed how that evolution played into the 2005 White Sox' use of their bullpen and their successful "Closer by Situation" strategy. In the first section, Angus takes a look at the role of closer as it has developed over the last 30 years and, interestingly, takes issue with the most frequent theory of its origin. That "origin myth," as Angus calls it, involves Herman Franks' use of Bruce Sutter in the late '70s as the founding combination, followed by Tony LaRussa's deployment of Dennis Eckersley in the late 1980s. That theory is only "partially true"; Angus views the development of the role as akin to Gould's biological evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium (PE). Under that view, there was much experimentation initially, followed by establishment of the dominant model and, finally, intensification where the model's limitations become apparent. That path from initiation to dominance for the "Clean 9th" closer in Angus' terminology (meaning a closer who is brought in almost exclusively to start the ninth inning in a save situation) runs as follows: experimentation in the models used by Franks and LaRussa, to establishment with Jeff Torborg's use of Bobby Thigpen in 1990, to intensification as Jim Fregosi took it to the extreme in his use of Mitch Williams in 1993. That blind adherence to the dominant model ultimately cost the Phillies dearly. Williams struggled in the NLCS and in Game Four of the World Series before imploding in Game Six. Fregosi could only watch, not having developed any other options. ......... In the second part of the presentation, Angus looks at how the White Sox overcame the dominant model and perhaps became the vanguards of a new model by employing a "Closer by Situation" model that succeeded where the Red Sox of 2003 and Cubs of 2005 had failed. Angus credits the Sox with being willing to make changes in their bullpen usage and, perhaps more importantly, create an environment where those changes were accepted in a world where hierarchy and the psychological comfort of established roles are king. In Angus' words from his paper: Their rational-in-design, revolutionary-in-its-sabermetric-underpinnings idea was to make each reliever understand the truth that he was equally-responsible for the team’s success as the reliever who appeared in an inning named for a different number. As Guillén said, 'If I put you in there in the seventh, close the seventh. If it’s the eighth, close the eighth. If it’s the ninth, close the ninth.'" This idea underlines the key notion discussed in Keith Woolner's chapter "Are Teams Letting Their Closers Go to Waste?" in Baseball Between the Numbers (BBTN) which basically is that the most highly leveraged situations often occur as early as the 6th inning and often times "closing" those earlier innings will provide greater benefit to the team in the long run. In Woolner's study this equates to about 1.6 wins on average over the course of a season, and as many as 4.5. Angus then illustrates the four phases of the White Sox application of the closer role in 2005 by showing how, over the course of the season, Shingo Takatsu, Dustin Hermanson, Bobby Jenks and Hermanson, and finally Jenks were phased through the 9th-inning role (although never exclusively). What I found interesting was that these transitions were not done from a state of panic or absolute necessity, but appeared planned and therefore instilled confidence. Linkie

QUOTE(illinilaw08 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:30 PM) Adding Linebrink and Cameron fills 3 holes on this team... you add your righty setup man, your 4th OF (no more Mack in CF) and potentially move BMAC into the rotation and if all this takes is Fields, Freddy can be moved somewhere for young arms. Assuming that Crede is the cornerstone at 3B, this deal makes great sense for the SOx. Would any one rather try to move Freddy for young SP Prospects and then combine them with Fields in an attempt to get Crawford? That is all I really care to keep Fields around for. To try and get one of these young stars who may become available such as Crawford or MCab.